/lit/ - Literature

>>4203486

Nabokov was clearly a pedophile, as evidenced by the fact that pedophilia (ephebophilia actually) features throughout his works. I like my meat a couple decades aged yet I nevertheless had a bonerific good time reading it. The thing is that deep inside we're all closet ephebophiles..it's just that the majority of us won't act on it, due to various modes of external conditioning, and that's fine i guess, however, what i won't stand for is you feeling

>shame

at such a natural reaction

way to completely disregard thousands of years marital and procreative tradition. the thing is that you've been conned fuckboy.
your shame has been thrust onto you by this perverse judeo-christian ethic which denies our very corporeal essence, this eternal joke of mind before body, ghost before flesh, 'spirit' endlessly enslaving our material being with these contradictory rules of look but don't touch, touch but don't taste, taste but don't swallow, repress, repress, repress, hold it in and count to ten and i unload the accumulated jizz of my rotting ancestors into the diseased cunt of Christ which has corrupted us all and made us lose track of our carnal truth, summoned by blood which does not lie, now stemmed by this tourniquet of a jewish moral ethic.
Whereas الزهرة حين تكون نجمة صبح said:
"at age 13, upon that first blood, it's fucking go time, ace"
Wasā'il al-Shīʿa chapter 4 verse 58

nature does not lie, lest she be ashamed of her own design...

right, so 13 year old Wittgenstein and that other Kant douche: i'd like to continue our discussion, if you don't mind

Last thing 13 year old Witt wrote:

By background values I meant any value that is appropriate regarding the maxim.
>this shows the circular nature of the categorical imperative.
Still don't get it. Explain what you're saying to em like I'm five. And in what sense are you using the term substance?
>yes, by the use of prior background values
Not necessarily. Certain things are simply true, i.e. that there is a substance.
>this is hegel's term, as result of what he saw as nothing but empty formalism. you can plug in any maxim into the imperative and it will successfully universalize, UNLESS you have prior background values, which in turn devalues the force of the imperative and renders it as mere "formalism".
You know what, I wanna ask you to define "background value"
>that's a gigantic bullet you're willing to bite, ace
I don't care. Everything that happens is morally objectionable anyways.
>also, are you NYU anon?
Why do you ask?

Last thing Random Kant douche wrote:

How is this possibly true? With the classic maxim, "Lying is permitted"—universalizing it would render the concept of lying void, i.e., it wouldn't be possible to deceive someone in a world with rampant deception and where lying is expected. The same goes for the maxim "breaking promises is permitted". In either of these examples, have "background values" (new term for me) snuck back into the invalidation? I don't think so.

I'll bump this thread tomorrow night too, in case you are not online tonight.

>>3765245

lel, that cut deep m8, take it back